Ah...that's kinda interesting and reminds me of my first unpleasant dialog with protel. I asked Protel for that very feature (arbitrary geometry) in 1989, because we had need for teardrop pads, as we were making our own boards in a tank setup at CWRU, where I worked at the time. FWIW, teardrops were desired because etching times were uncertain, often resulting in over etching of boards, and any subsequent rework of the thru-hole boards was tolerated better by a teardrop pad.
Deaf ears. The US support office said it was a ridiculous proposition and _no one_ would _ever_ want such a feature. As it was, I teardropped by hand using circular pads and bits of track, but it was a pain in the neck, especially powered by an 8087 proc... Lol aj >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Saputelli >Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:17 PM >To: Geoff Harland; Protel EDA Discussion List >Subject: SUSPECT: Re: [PEDA] Octagonal Pads > >i did not describe the wish well > > > Or have I "grabbed the wrong end of the stick" in this instance, and > > you actually want just two of the four corners to be >rounded instead? > >yes this is what i had wanted > >these sorts of shapes can be very handy at times, chokes, >buttons, dual footprint compromises that customers always demand > >ideally i would like to be able to define a completely >arbitrary pad shape, e.g. a polygon with differing radiused corners > >failing that then the current rounded rectangle but with 4 (or >2) settable corner radii > >failing both of those then also acceptable would be piling up >a bunch of junk (tracks, fills, regions, other pads) BUT >without the current nuisance of having to update free >primitives all the time > >these primitives when part of a component and when touching a >pad and when on an electrical layer should simply become >children of the pad, sort of like a nested sub component and >any child pads should lose most of their electrical properties >such as designator so that that ambiguity would also be solved >solder mask and paste could be offered as a calculation of the >boundary of the finished composite object (sort of a >'SUPER-PAD') or simply drawn or pasted from the conglomerate mess > >DXF is high on my list to fix > >Dennis Saputelli > >_______________________________________________________________________ >CONTACT INFORMATION: >_______________________________________________________________________ >Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 >2851 21st Street Fax: 415-647-3003 >San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.com >_______________________________________________________________________ >NOTE! TO PASS OUR SPAM FILTER PUT THE FOLLOWING IN SUBJECT LINE: I.C.I. > > >Geoff Harland wrote: >> Dennis Saputelli wrote: >> <snip> >> >> I don't have a copy of AD6 (and thus can't confirm it for >myself), but >> I would have thought that you could select the 'Top-Middle-Bottom' >> value for a pad's 'Padstack Mode' property, then select the 'Square' >> value for the Shape property on the Middle and Bottom >layers, and the 'Rounded Rectangular' >> value instead on the Top layer. >> >> Or have I "grabbed the wrong end of the stick" in this instance, and >> you actually want just two of the four corners to be rounded >instead? >> (And perhaps on just one of the layers, such as the Top (copper) >> Layer.) That would indeed require more effort to implement, and I >> would appreciate you not wanting to do that unless there was a truly >> compelling reason for doing so. >> >> *If* AD (eventually) acquires all of the functionality which is >> currently provided by P-CAD (2006), then you would in due course be >> able to define a shape of your own choice on each layer, which would >> better cater for such situations. (There is no guarantee that that >> will ever happen, but *unless* that happens, P-CAD users will in due >> course lose some of the functionality which is currently provided to >> them, as it is public knowledge that P-CAD >> 2006 will be the last major release of that application.) >> >> >> I would really be interested in hearing about which issues you think >> should be rectified on an ASAP basis. (One area which I regard as >> needing a lot of improvement involves DRC procedures, and especially >> various aspects involving Internal Plane layers, non-"Simple" pads, >> and unplated pads.) >> >> On the matter of octagonal pads though, you are definitely >entitled to >> your own POV, and I'm certainly not going to condemn you for it. And >> there are doubtless many issues (perhaps even most issues) on which >> different users would have different views (as far as the urgency in >> getting them rectified is concerned). My POV on this >particular issue >> though is that it involves functionality of a core nature, >and it can >> "catch out" users who are not in the know (as indeed Steve >Hendrix has >> reported), and that users should not have to resort to the >workaround >> of generating ODB++ files and then exporting Gerber files >from the CAMtastic file displaying those ODB++ files. >> >> I regard the existance of that workaround as a "mildly" mitigating >> factor as far as the urgency of rectifying the contents of >"directly" >> generated Gerber files is concerned, but it still doesn't change the >> fact that it is not inherently obvious that "directly" generated >> Gerber files can be problematic. >> >> To deal with that aspect of the staus quo though, Altium's >programmers >> could write some code which would display a dialog box >whenever users >> attempted to "directly" generate Gerber files (and the PCB file >> concerned contained one or more pads having an octagonal >shape). That >> dialog box could alert users that there would be issues with >> "directly" generated Gerber files, while also notifying them of the >> workaround available, and also "polling" them as to whether >they still >> want to continue (with generating those files "directly"). And the >> provision of that code would require less effort than the effort >> required to rectify "directly" generated Gerber files *and* >the other >> simultaneous changes which I would regard as highly >advisable (and which I described in my previous message). >> >> OTOH, if this issue was to be rectified eventually (and all of the >> other changes recommended were either already implemented >before then, >> or otherwise on a simultaneous basis), then some programming time >> could be saved by making all of those changes on an ASAP >basis instead >> (and thus avoiding the need to write any code for the dialog >box just >> described). And making those changes would "present" AD in a more >> professional manner, from the POV of users, than the invocation of a >> dialog box advising them that they would need to resort to a >> workaround to generate truly satisfactory Gerber files. >> >> OTGH (On The Gripping Hand, from "motie" aliens who have three arms, >> as described within Niven and Pournelle's SF novel "The Mote >in God's >> Eye"), it would not take very much effort to write the >source code for >> the dialog box concerned, so the provision of that dialog >box "for the >> time being" would at least alert users that there is an >issue in this >> regard, and thus substantially reduce the liklihood that any PCBs >> which they ordered would be "mis-manufactured". I would still regard >> it as highly preferable for this issue to be rectified ASAP, but the >> provision of such a dialog box would at least address its "gotcha" >> aspect, and also advise users of the available workaround. >> >> >> I sometimes wonder whether Altium's management are working >for anyone >> other than themselves, as some of their actions could be regarded as >> being hostile to the interests of their customers, their >shareholders, >> and their employees. If I was to take a charitable attitude though, >> they probably really don't appreciate just how and why they have let >> all of those stakeholders down on various occasions. >> >> ? >> >> If support for pads having an octagonal shape was ever withdrawn, it >> probably wouldn't be regarded as a loss by anyone who has never used >> such pads. OTOH, people who have used such pads (and I have, on some >> occasions (in conjunction with some extra steps and precautions)) >> could be expected to have a very different view though. >> >> I am definitely not hostile to the provision of the relatively new >> "Rounded Rectangular" shape for pads, but what I still do find >> objectionable is Altium's willingness to provide new features or >> functionality while failing to rectify serious defects >associated with >> existing features and functionality. And in a number of cases, new >> features have resulted in regression in previously provided >features, >> and typically because the new features have not been >properly thought >> through. And for the same reason, and/or manifestly inadequate >> testing, newly provided features have themselves often left a lot to >> be desired as well (and regardless of/"over and above" their >impact upon previously provided features). >> >> While making changes to how new functionality and features are >> developed and implemented could potentially result in them being >> provided at a slower rate than has been the case to date, I still >> think that there are far too many cases of defects which >should never >> have been "shipped" to users in the first instance, and >which have all >> too frequently still not been rectified in a timely manner >after users >> subsequently discover them (and sometimes only after being >"bitten" by >> such defects). And while there are probably a number of users who >> wouldn't regard the issue involving pads with an octagonal shape as >> being a "top priority" issue, and another complicating >factor is that >> it would be highly desirable (if not essential) to make some other >> changes at the same time (or else beforehand) as well, I am still of >> the view that this particular issue should still be rectified ASAP. >> Failing that, the dialog box which I described previously should be >> implemented on an ASAP basis instead, in order to at least >mitigate the impact of that defect. >> >> Regards, >> Geoff Harland. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum >> >> To Post messages: >> mailto:[email protected] >> >> Unsubscribe and Other Options: >> http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com >> >> Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] >> >> Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum > >To Post messages: >mailto:[email protected] > >Unsubscribe and Other Options: >http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com > >Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > >Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > This e-mail transmission and its attachments may contain information from Avtron Manufacturing, Inc. that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
